Very sorry for misnaming you, G. :-) Further responses:
>>> I wrote it but initially edited out - it's "reasonably" clear, but there are other (1)'s in 1728, and I'm also writing after the fact (when Without Objection has been mentioned), so it may not be "unambiguously" clear. The announcement of intent stated that I planned to take an action using the “method” in R1728(1). There is only one paragraph numbered (1) in Rule 1728 that specifies a method for taking an action—the “without N objections” method. It clearly and unambiguously could not mean any other paragraph, because no other paragraph 1 specifies any relevant method. And it is even /more/ clear and unambiguous when we take account of the fact that the intent says it will be executed unless there’s “any one” objection. So, in my view, there is no ambiguity here at all (and I think you aren’t saying you necessarily think there is). >>> I agree, [that the intent] was a clear statement that you *would* not [take the action if there were an objection], but it isn't a clear statement that you *could* not, which is what "without objection" legally needs to imply. The Rule itself does not make that distinction though. Under the Rule, this sentence is obviously OK: “I will take [an action] without 1 objection.” That doesn’t say the person “could not” take that action if an objection is registered; instead it implies that the person “will not” take it. The Rule does not require someone to say that they “CANNOT take the action with 1 objection”, but only requires that a person clearly and unambiguously specify the number of objections that they set N equal to. I submit that I did that clearly and unambiguously. > parliamentary vs. nomic traditions Seems to me that the stated intent is well within the spirit of the game. The rules could, but do not, specify a particular formulation of words to state a “without objection” intent. That seems to me to be a loophole that should be exploited in accordance with the spirit of nomic. Fun! :-D On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 4:44 PM Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I'm G., not Aris (I should remember to sign things, sorry!) :) > > I'll add that this covers two very different "good of the game" sort of > questions for the judge to consider: > > 1. The Parliamentary Tradition: "Without Objection" has more dangerous > consequences than win by Apathy (e.g. Ruleset changes). In a legislature, > if you mumbled "any objections?" so only you could hear it, then said > "with no objections I proceed", it would be thrown out. We should stick > very strongly to this principle and say: ANY obfuscation outside the > clear > statement "Without Objection" should be thrown out as too ambiguous, > because it's dangerous to allow these levels of obfuscation. > > 2. The Nomic Tradition: It's a game, and this was clever, and did > specify everything (in an obfuscated way). > > I'm not sure what side to err on here, but thought it worth pointing out > the tension (which is why I'm 50/50 personally). > > Some detail responses: > > In particular, as Aris [sic] emself acknowledges, my reference to Rule > > 1728(1) made it clear and unambiguous that I intended to take action > > under the "without N Objections" method. That is not in dispute. > > I wrote it but initially edited out - it's "reasonably" clear, but > there are other (1)'s in 1728, and I'm also writing after the fact > (when Without Objection has been mentioned), so it may not be > "unambiguously" clear. > > > it was a clear statement that I would not execute the intent if "one" > > person objected > > I agree, it was a clear statement that you *would* not, but it isn't a > clear statement that you *could* not, which is what "without objection" > legally needs to imply. > > -G. > > > On Thu, 13 Sep 2018, D Margaux wrote: > > > :-D > > > > From Aris: > > > > > > > > And very specifically, in the above, you must be "(including the value > of > > > N and/or T for each method)". In eir announcement of intent, e refers > to > > > 1728(1) which is "without N Objections", and e didn't specify that N=1. > > > While "without objection" is "shorthand" for 1, 1 is not the "default" > > > N for 1728(1) if the words "without objection" are left out. Saying > > > "if any one objects then I won't" is a stated plan, but it is not > > > synonymous with nor generally accepted (i.e. "clear") shorthand for > N=1. > > > > > > > My response: > > > > The intent did clearly and unambiguously set N=1. As a result, the CFJ > is TRUE. > > > > In particular, as Aris emself acknowledges, my reference to Rule > > 1728(1) made it clear and unambiguous that I intended to take action > > under the "without N Objections" method. That is not in dispute. > > > > My announcement set N=1 when I said I would not perform the intended > > action if any one (1) person objected: "if any /one/ objects, then I > > won't [undertake the stated intent]." That language is clear and > > unambiguous. It clearly states that the intent would not be executed > > if I received any one (1) objection. It unambiguously set N=1, > > because the intent cannot be read to set N equal to any other number > > besides 1. > > > > Aris's reasons do not establish any unclarity or ambiguity about > > whether N=1. E says that "'if any one objects then I won't' is a > > stated plan", but it was not a "plan"--it was a clear statement that I > > would not execute the intent if "one" person objected (thereby setting > > N=1). Aris does not explain why anyone could be "unclear" about the > > number of objections required to prevent me from taking the action. > > And Aris does not claim it is "ambiguous", I think, because e does not > > offer an interpretation of the intent that would set N equal any > > number other than 1. > > > > In sum, the announcement clearly and unambiguously declared that the > > stated intent would not be executed if there was one (1) objection, > > and that is all the Rule requires to set N=1. The CFJ should be > > judged TRUE. > > > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 3:50 PM Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Fun!! > > > > > > CFJ, barring D Margaux (and noting to the Arbitor that twg is self- > > > interested): > > > > > > D Margaux has won the game by apathy. > > > > > > > > > Arguments: > > > > > > There's strong language in the rules for specifying intent > announcements, > > > and I believe precedents hold that you have to be really really darn > > > clear about intent announcements: > > > > > > R1728: > > > 1. A person (the initiator) announced intent to perform the > > > action, unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and > > > method(s) (including the value of N and/or T for each > method), > > > at most fourteen days earlier. > > > > > > "Unambiguously and clearly" is a strong standard, and I'm not sure the > > > announcement in question is "clear". > > > > > > And very specifically, in the above, you must be "(including the value > of > > > N and/or T for each method)". In eir announcement of intent, e refers > to > > > 1728(1) which is "without N Objections", and e didn't specify that N=1. > > > While "without objection" is "shorthand" for 1, 1 is not the "default" > > > N for 1728(1) if the words "without objection" are left out. Saying > > > "if any one objects then I won't" is a stated plan, but it is not > > > synonymous with nor generally accepted (i.e. "clear") shorthand for > N=1. > > > > > > > > > [Not part-of-arguments note: I'm maybe 50/50 on this, a v. nice > attempt, > > > but one way or the other definitely worth a CFJ!] > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 13 Sep 2018, D Margaux wrote: > > > > Having heard no objection, I DECLARE APATHY pursuant to Rule 2465, > > > > specifying all players currently located at (-2, 2), in particular, > myself > > > > and twg. > > > > > > > > In celebration thereof, > > > > > > > > I give one incense to Agora, as an offering to the Gods of the > Game, > > > > and > > > > > > > > I give one incense to twg, in gratitude to em for not raining > on this > > > > parade. > > > > > > > > -D Margaux > > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > > > > From: D Margaux <[email protected]> > > > > Date: Sun, Sep 9, 2018 at 3:09 PM > > > > Subject: Fair Warning re Blots/Reports/Etc. > > > > To: Agora Business <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > > > The enforcement of late reports has been lax in recent weeks, so it > seems > > > > only fair to warn everyone--I plan to issue 2 blot unforgiveable > fines this > > > > upcoming Thursday for any weekly/monthly reports that are due today > and are > > > > not submitted by end of day on this upcoming Wednesday. If there > are more > > > > than 3 such late reports, then I plan to invoke R2532 to have my > zombie > > > > Point eir Finger at the additional people, since I can't issue SJ to > more > > > > than three people. I suspect that use of my zombie could be > controversial, > > > > but Finger Pointing isn't listed as an excluded action by R2532, so > I think > > > > it is permitted. Let me know if any one disagrees with that, > though, and I > > > > might not do it that way. Also, maybe somewhat less > controversially, I > > > > note that per the method in R1728(1) I plan to use/invoke R2465 on > Thursday > > > > with regard to any players at that time who are located on (-2, 2), > which I > > > > think is my land, but if any one objects to that then I won't. > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > -- D. Margaux
